Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2010/184

UNDT/2010/184, Amarilla

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The applicant (but not his counsel) received a copy of the letter on 1 December 2008 and therefore had until 2 March 2009 to file his application. However, his application was dated 30 June 2009, or 120 days past the deadline, and it was received by the former Administrative Tribunal only on 6 July 2009. The respondent submitted as a preliminary matter that the application was time-barred. The applicant contended that his counsel had not been notified of the decision by the Administration and therefore counsel was unable to file a timeous appeal. UNDT found that the applicant was informed of the contested decision and that it was the responsibility of the applicant, who was informed of the status of his case, to give instructions to his counsel. UNDT held that there was no evidence that the applicant took any steps to initiate his appeal on time, that there were no exceptional reasons to justify a waiver of the time limits, and that the application was therefore time-barred. Outcome: The application was dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The applicant contested the decision to place a letter of censure on his official status file following charges of sexual harassment against him.

Legal Principle(s)

Waiver and suspension of time limits, exceptional circumstances: For UNDT to waive or suspend the deadlines stipulated in art. 8 of the Statute, the reasons outlined in a request for a waiver or suspension of time limits must show circumstances that are out of the ordinary, quite unusual, special, or uncommon; they need not be unique, unprecedented, or beyond the applicant’s control. Forfeiture of right to be heard: To have standing before UNDT, the applicant must show that he has not been negligent or forfeited the right to be heard by his inaction or lack of vigilance.

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Amarilla
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Applicable Law